Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25198068›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2014

The Devon Active Villages Evaluation (DAVE) trial of a community-level physical activity intervention in rural south-west England: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Emma Solomon, Tim Rees, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Brad Metcalf, Melvyn Hillsdon

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. How should a cluster randomized trial be analyzed?Journal of epidemiology and population health · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma Solomon
Tim Rees
Obioha C Ukoumunne
Brad Metcalf
Melvyn Hillsdon
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of adults are not meeting the guidelines for physical activity despite activity being linked with numerous improvements to long-term health. In light of this, researchers have called for more community-level interventions. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate whether a community-level physical activity intervention increased the activity levels of rural communities.

methods128 rural villages (clusters) were randomised to receive the intervention in one of four time periods between April 2011 and December 2012. The Devon Active Villages intervention provided villages with 12 weeks of physical activity opportunities for all age groups, including at least three different types of activities per village. Each village received an individually tailored intervention, incorporating a local needs-led approach. Support was provided for a further 12 months following the intervention. The evaluation study used a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial design. All 128 villages were measured at each of five data collection periods using a postal survey. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of adults reporting sufficient physical activity to meet internationally recognised guidelines. Minutes spent in moderate-and-vigorous activity per week was analysed as a secondary outcome. To compare between intervention and control modes, random effects linear regression and marginal logistic regression models were implemented for continuous and binary outcomes respectively.

results10,412 adults (4693 intervention, 5719 control) completed the postal survey (response rate 32.2%). The intervention did not increase the odds of adults meeting the physical activity guideline (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.17; P = 0.80), although there was weak evidence of an increase in minutes of moderate-and-vigorous-intensity activity per week (adjusted mean difference = 171, 95% CI: -16 to 358; P = 0.07). The ineffectiveness of the intervention may have been due to its low penetration-only 16% of intervention mode participants reported awareness of the intervention and just 4% reported participating in intervention events.

conclusionsA community-level physical activity intervention providing tailored physical activity opportunities to rural villages did not improve physical activity levels in adults. Greater penetration of such interventions must be achieved if they are to increase physical activity prevalence at the community level.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN37321160.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityRural PopulationAdultAgedCluster AnalysisEnglandEnvironmentFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25198068
PMCPMC4105855
OpenAlexW2099373549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.